SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home A Time to Act

POLITICS FEBRUARY 23, 2012

A Time to Act

BY THE EDITORS

Thousands of people have already died in Syria, and it appears likely that thousands more will die in the weeks and months to come. Bashar Al Assad’s forces show no sign of relenting, and the international community shows no sign of coming to the rescue of the Syrian people. China and Russia have effectively blocked any chance of working through the United Nations. World opinion is horrified, but world leaders are paralyzed. No lack of diplomatic effort has been expended in trying to get Assad to back down; but these efforts have done nothing to stop the bloodshed. It now seems possible that non-diplomatic options—namely, arming the rebels or using Western airpower to weaken the regime, as we did so successfully in Libya—might be the only way to halt the killing. Should the United States act on these options? It is not an easy question, but we think that the case for doing so is starting to look stronger than the case against.

Some of the arguments against arming the rebels or deploying airpower in Syria are of the old, cynical, hard-hearted variety; but plenty of others are sober and worth taking seriously. Perhaps the most important is that we know so little about the rebels whose side we would be taking. What kind of country would they build in Assad’s wake? Would the Sunni majority, once in power, exact revenge against the Alawi minority?

To this objection, we would simply say that, while questions about the country’s future are important, right now the question that matters most is how to stop a nasty regime from killing people daily in the streets. Should we really allow innocent people to be killed by this government because the next government could be far from perfect?

To be clear, we do not want to see troops deployed to Syria. We are not arguing for another Iraq or another Afghanistan—both of which have offered cautionary lessons about the limits of American power. We are not even necessarily arguing for another Libya, since the geography of the Syrian conflict might not permit as extensive an air campaign as was used against Muammar Qaddafi. All we are recommending is that the United States and its allies look for ways to help the rebels hold off Assad’s troops, by arming them or using some degree of airpower on their behalf, or both.

America’s track record when we take on such limited interventions is actually quite good. Think back through the similar emergencies that have unfolded over the past several decades—the situations where an awful government has engaged in mass slaughter. Which of these situations does the United States today remember as success stories and which as failures? Do we generally regret having done too much to stop massacres or too little? In East Timor in the 1970s, we did nothing and the result was more than 100,000 dead. We have never stopped regretting our failure to act in Rwanda—and never will. At first, in Bosnia, we sat on the sidelines and the result was monstrous. But, eventually, we acted against Slobodan Milosevic, and the killing finally stopped. In Kosovo, in East Timor the second time (in 1999), and in Libya, we managed to stop massacres. None of these situations has turned out perfectly. But there is no doubt that, by intervening, the United States and its allies saved lives.

Both the United States and Europe are tired of war. Having just saved Libya from Qaddafi, there is an understandable reluctance to initiate another intervention so soon. But are these ultimately acceptable reasons to let thousands more people die in Syria? To let a tyrant proceed with mass murder?

Unfortunately, as we go to press, President Obama seems disinclined to arm the rebels or use U.S. airpower to stop Assad. Fortunately, other politicians seem to be trying to convince him. Recently, as reports circulated that Syrian forces were massing outside the rebel stronghold of Homs, John McCain went on CBS to make the case for arming the rebels. During the interview, anchor Scott Pelley confronted him with what is really the central moral question of this entire episode: “Senator,” he asked, “why should the United States have a role? Why is this our problem, if you will?” McCain responded, in part: “Here is an unchecked massacre using artillery, tanks, and [the] most horrible means. ... It’s the same rationale why we went into Bosnia. It’s the same reason why we went to Kosovo. It’s the same reason why we involved ourselves in other parts of the world on behalf of people who can’t help themselves. And that’s a role and a mission and a tradition of the United States of America.” McCain is certainly no liberal. Yet, on the issue of Syria, he has found his way to a liberal, compassionate position—that we must do what we can to stop mass slaughter—while President Obama, so far, has not.

This article appeared in the March 15, 2012 issue of the magazine.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 93 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

93 comments

I'm scared.

- skahn

February 23, 2012 at 12:32am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

“Some of the arguments against arming the rebels or deploying airpower in Syria are of the old, cynical, hard-hearted variety; but plenty of others are sober and worth taking seriously. Perhaps the most important is that we know so little about the rebels whose side we would be taking. What kind of country would they build in Assad’s wake? Would the Sunni majority, once in power, exact revenge against the Alawi minority?” I don’t think it’s cynical to worry about the kind of Sunni government would emerge in Syria? It isn’t merely an internal Syrian question. How would an Islamic Sunni government relate itself to those Islamic governments emerging in Egypt, in Tunis and elsewhere? I am not against helping to stop Assad’s killing machine. But if we are going to help we need to make it clear that any future Syrian government can’t just impose its own will on the Syrian people and set up an Islamic enclave that imposes its will on the non Sunni, non Muslim Syrians.

- arnon

February 23, 2012 at 12:38am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I'm astonished by the inability of Turkey, Egypt, and the Gulf states to aid their fellow Sunnis in Syria. There is no end to the Syrian imbroglio as long as warring sects are forced to coexist in one inherently unstable state and cynical foreign powers such as Russia, China, and Iran are exploiting the situation to their own selfish advantages. I don't have much faith in Washington wisdom about Syria. Our leaders, not only the Obama administration, always seem to have been born yesterday. Jimmy Carter thought that Hafez Assad was a fine fellow whom we should support. Obama seems to have no goals in the region other than the promotion of elections where people mostly vote along sectoral lines anyway. His Republican opponents have no strategy either.

- amidut

February 23, 2012 at 6:24am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

More about the incoherence of the Obama administration. The administration opposes timely Israeli military operations against Iran's nuclear facilities. Yet Iran is the main supporter of the Assad regime. Iranian agents and proxies, such as Hezbollah, are active in Syria helping to put down the rebellion. Can anybody justify this? Isn't it time that we support Israel and decapitate the current Iranian regime? Why is Obama still dithering after all these years?

- amidut

February 23, 2012 at 7:17am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Well spoken Arnon. Amidut... "decapitating" the current Iranian regime wouldn't necessarily result in a government friendly to Israel or one that divested itself of nuclear ambitions. In fact, I believe there's amble evidence the opposition parties are identical to the crop of loons currently in charge in these two respects. This is not to say Obama has acted perfectly with regards to the Iran crisis, but it ain't that simple, my friend.

- Tristan

February 23, 2012 at 7:47am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

What little substance there is the policy recommendations aside, the worst part of this piece is the editors’ attempt to exhort us to action by citing the consequences of past inaction. If only we had intervened in East Timor, they lament. But of course, the reason we failed to stop Suharto from decimating the Timorese was because of his--and Indonesia’s--key role on our side in the great game of the time. It is once again instructive that the editors completely ignore the situation in Bahrain which is, in effect, East Timor brought forward to the present. It’s not “in our interests” to support republican majority rule in Bahrain now, just as it was not in East Timor in 1975. I have no doubt that had the present editors been in officio at the time, they would have been studiously ignoring or perhaps even rationalizing Suharto’s mass murders. The proof lies in their tacit acceptance today in Bahrain of that which they condemn in the now conveniently distant past. Their cheap, rhetorical use of East Timor is the very definition of cynicism.

- ccarrick@vzavenue.net-old

February 23, 2012 at 8:51am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

By describing the conflict in Syria as "Assad's forces" against Syrians and then comparing Syria to Bosnia and Kosovo, the editors are suggesting that the killing in Syria is the same as the genocide (ethnic cleansing) in Bosnia and Kosovo. But it's not. While Assad is Alawi (Shia), fully 80% of Assad's troops are Sunni, which comprise the majority in Syria. It's Sunni killing Sunni. Why? One explanation (the Assad regime's) is that they are fighting radical Sunni's affiliated with al-Qaida in Iraq who have infiltrated the rebels. Another is purely economic, that the Sunnis in Assad's forces are dependent on their salaries to support themselves and their families as Syria's economy suffers from international sanctions. And still another is that most of the fighting is being done by the Republican Guard and the Army's 4th Division, both commanded by Assad's brother and in which most of the officers are Alawi, and, therefore, most loyal to Assad. Whatever the explanation, this is a war of attrition, as eventually more and more of the Sunni forces will defect and leave Assad without an army to withstand the rebel forces. The editors say we should arm the rebels to accelerate the end to Assad's regime. I ask, which ones, the Sunni radicals, the Sunni defectors from Assad's forces, the Sunni street fighters, and how do we distinguish them. And once Assad's regime does fall, do we send in troops to stop the genocide by the Sunni majority against the Shia (Alawi) minority, or do we accept the Sunni majority explanation that they are fighting Shia troops coming into the country from Iran. These are difficult questions, ones the interventionists prefer to address only after we have made the military commitment in Syria.

- rayward

February 23, 2012 at 9:39am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Funny thing about that exchange between Scott Pelley and McCain -- Pelley asks why the US should be intervening in Syria and McCain brings up the examples of Bosnia and Kosovo (he probably forgot about Libya and doesn't remember East Timor). Meanwhile, all available public opinion polling showed that the American public opposed the Bosnia and Kosovo interventions before, during and after they happened -- and continue to oppose them now, though the question hasn't been asked in a while since it's been so long. But the Libya intervention got the same answer. Obviously elected officials don't need to follow the public on how to respond to genocide or civilian massacre, but it's clear that the American public is, was and will be dubious of humanitarian military intervention under almost any circumstances.

- wildboy

February 23, 2012 at 9:44am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"More about the incoherence of the Obama administration. The administration opposes timely Israeli military operations against Iran's nuclear facilities. Yet Iran is the main supporter of the Assad regime. Iranian agents and proxies, such as Hezbollah, are active in Syria helping to put down the rebellion. Can anybody justify this? Isn't it time that we support Israel and decapitate the current Iranian regime? Why is Obama still dithering after all these years?" Questions with simple answers. Obama is "dithering" because he agrees with his intelligence and military chiefs that limited strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities -- whether by Israel or the US -- will only set the nuclear program back 3-5 years tops and will just push the Iranians to redouble their efforts to create a bomb in more secure facilities. On top of that, Obama agrees with his military and intelligence chiefs that Iran will respond to the attack with attemps to interfere with shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, proxy attacks on American diplomatic and military personnel all over the world, possible assistance to the Taliban in Afghanistan. The US will be forced to respond militarily to all or some of these moves, which will escalate the struggle into one for which the US doesn't have the military of political will (or capacity) to pursue to its logical conclusion -- the overthrow of the Iranian government, the occupation of the country and the installation of a more pro-Western government that would cooperate on nuclear and regional issues. US military and intelligence professionals look at the scenario and believe that it will be impossible to achieve those things under any realistic circumstances, and the experiences of Iraq and Afghanistan strongly suggest that American expectations of rosy scenarios are unlikely to unfold as planned. As for opposition to Israel's attack on Iran, the US has the same concerns as with its own attack -- that it will be sucked into a war between Israel and Iran that will cost American lives, economic interests and diplomatic prestige without producing the desired effect of either positive regime change in Iran or an Iran that gives up its nuclear program. The opposition is buttressed by the fact that, while Netenyahu, Barak and the Israeli public in general desire to attack Iran soon, there is still opposition in Israel's military and intelligence establishments. The US knows this, and belives that they have the latitude to urge the Israelis to resist a military strike at the moment where the strike is not favored by many of the people who are tasked with carrying it out and defending against the Iranian counter-attack.

- wildboy

February 23, 2012 at 9:55am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"What kind of country would they build in Assad’s wake? Would the Sunni majority, once in power, exact revenge against the Alawit minority?" Does the bear s.. in the wood? Would Arabs taking power not kill Christians? Druze? Alawites? Go ahead ally yourself with The Muslim Brotherood in Syria and no matter what your motives are you will be associated with no less a massacre than Assad's.

- Poupic

February 23, 2012 at 10:08am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Interesting notion that a government may not put down armed rebellion. And the tendency for other powers to intervene, or not, has little to do with justice and everything to do with the geopolitical interests of the intervenors. That quickly becomes indistinguishable from prohibitied war. Which is why we have at least on multilateral institution to address this, so that creating, arming, and then assisting rebellion does not become merely the avenue for invasion and "decapitation" in violation of the UN Charter -- the rule that war is only permitted in defense or if authorized by the UNSC. The editors have little regard for the benefits of international law and are more or less constantly urging us to war somewhere in the world without regard to international law. The track record so far is not great. The basis for intervention in Libya, sanctioned by the UNSC, was the real threat of civilian massacre unrelated to the generally legitimate effort of an existing government to put down armed rebellion -- unless that is the authors, in their general neo-con style (now rhetorically suppressed a bit because such a failure) are of the view that only governments that meet our democratic standards should be considered legitimate and the rest fair game, a notion fraught with peril for the world. Of course, we quickly went beyond the bounds of the UNSC authorization in Libya, moving from prevention of war crimes to regime change. I suggested at the time, on these pages, that stepping beyond the bounds of international law was not a good idea, with the likely consequence that that UNSC resolution would be the last of its kind, that the UNSC was not going to support regime change as its mission, particularly as it remains ideologically divided. Are there war crimes being committed in Syria? Unclear. In all wars there are civilian casualties, moreso no doubt in civil wars without an opponent in battle dress and regular order. If the mere fact of civilian casualties is to become a war crime, something pacifists would welcome, the United States may soon find itself very discomfited. There are plenty of civilian casualties when we are at war. In the absence of evidence of war crimes, wide casualties amongst civilians not justified by military necessity, UNSC resolution, or our own defense, there is no basis in international law for intervention. We ought then to refrain, because there are consequences to toppling the entire regime of international law, effectively getting rid of the UN (another objective of the neo-cons who think we would be better off relying on our on power than on any multilateral institution although that state of affairs gave us two world wars). At the very, very least, we need not to be acting either alone or as western interventionists without support of regional governments. That means that it is the task of the Arab League first and foremost to determine that multilateral intervention is required, as did NATO in Bosnia and Kosovo, and to support it with more than rhetoric. If called to assist, the US could then assist. It is not quite the structure envisioned in the UN Charter, but it is not quite its wholesale abandonment either. At least that offers us some bulwark against ultimate international reaction if it is perceived by other powers that we are more or less roving the world decapitating regimes we don't like. And reaction there will be. And we will not be safer for it.

- roidubouloi

February 23, 2012 at 10:14am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Good arguments. I am encouraged that the Arab League and Avaaz (a highly effective NGO) will work together to pressure Syria. Obama often does the right thing late in the game e.g. Libya Also Obama said that Asad must go. If a President makes that statement, the USA does usually not sit idly by. So there's hope.

- Farsta

February 23, 2012 at 10:53am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Are there war crimes being committed in Syria? Unclear. In all wars there are civilian casualties, moreso no doubt in civil wars without an opponent in battle dress and regular order. If the mere fact of civilian casualties is to become a war crime, something pacifists would welcome, the United States may soon find itself very discomfited. There are plenty of civilian casualties when we are at war." FWIW, Roid, a UN panel just concluded that the Assad government is guilty of crimes against humanity in its bombardment of civilians in Homs. So there is pretty good evidence of said war crimes in Syria. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/24/world/middleeast/shelling-resumes-in-homs-syria-despite-ceasfire-calls.html?_r=1&hp

- wildboy

February 23, 2012 at 11:05am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Just saw the article on the front page of the NYT a few minutes ago, wildboy. That surely strengthens the case for intervention, although it is then unclear whether arming the rebels is even close to the best means to prevent civilian casualties. It may very well exacerbate them. Either way, I still think that, absent UNSC resolution, US or western intervention without the support and participation of the Arab League would be a grave mistake. There is in international law "an evolving doctrine of humanitarian intervention," but I doubt there is an evolving doctrine of unilateral humanitarian intervention by powers removed from the scene. Things tend to have repercussions. Exceeding the UNSC resolution in Libya, although emotionally satisfying, may be having repercussions. We need appropriate multilateral support. Regimes of law, including international law, serve a purpose. If they are abandoned, the result tends to be chaos, not freedom for the good to do good.

- roidubouloi

February 23, 2012 at 11:33am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

For those willing to look beyond Assad and the killing of Sunnis by Sunnis at his orders, you are correct: intervention in Syria is a step toward the interventionists' ultimate goal, which is an attack on Iran. An attack on Iran may or may not have merit, but intervention in Syria almost guarantees an attack on Iran, whatever the merits, as the genocide of Shia (Alawi) by the Sunni majority in Syria after the removal of Assad will provke some response from Iran, a response that the interventionists will use to justify the attack on Iran. For those supporting intervention in Syria, you are also supporting an attack on Iran, whether you know it or not.

- rayward

February 23, 2012 at 12:58pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

rayward, your post is full of paranoid speculations.

- arnon

February 23, 2012 at 2:14pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Al jazeera reporting in English http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2012/02/2012223133959617479.html

- JAIMECHUCH

February 23, 2012 at 2:15pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

New York Times on same report http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/24/world/middleeast/shelling-resumes-in-homs-syria-despite-ceasfire-calls.html

- JAIMECHUCH

February 23, 2012 at 2:21pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Red Cross trying to arrange stop to hostilities to help victims http://www.thebostonchannel.com/r/30497059/detail.html

- JAIMECHUCH

February 23, 2012 at 2:25pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Al Arabiya. Part 2 http://english.alarabiya.net/articles/2012/02/23/196519.html

- JAIMECHUCH

February 23, 2012 at 2:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Wildboy outlines the possible consequences of an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities. But he fails to outline likely consequences of not attacking Iran. A nuclear theocratic Iran bent on religious martyrdom will likely attack Israel, which has no geographic depth. Israel cannot take any nuclear hits. Iran, by contrast, can take a hit or two. I believe that they will do what they promise to do. If they don't, they will certainly whittle the Israelis down through demands for dangerous incremental concessions or else face Iran's holy wrath. As for differences of opinion among the Israelis, Israel, unlike Iran, is a truly democratic country. Remember, the stakes are high for Israel and they are desperate to get this situation right. Nuclear power will enable Iran to consolidate its political power in Syria and elsewhere. Arab states and Turkey will be inspired to accelerate their nuclear development programs. A likely prescription for increased nuclear brinksmanship and miscalculation. Iran's growing power, and the perceived weakness of Obama, will have self-fulfilling consequences as regional players decide to ride the seemingly stronger horse. What good is the hardware of American power if Obama is afraid to use it directly or as political leverage? With nukes and missiles, Iran will be able to threaten Europe. Iran has military installations in Venezuela and the active cooperation of Hugo Chavez and, by extension, Cuba. They are an increasing threat to the US homeland. Shouldn't we pre-empt that threat? No doubt lots of Iranian, Hezbollah, and Hamas agents, who don't speak Spanish very well, have already infiltrated US territory.

- amidut

February 23, 2012 at 2:34pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Al Arabiya . Part 1 http://english.alarabiya.net/articles/2012/02/23/196574.html

- JAIMECHUCH

February 23, 2012 at 2:36pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Anyone who has read the NYT report last week on the technical obstacles to restraining Iran's nuclear program by bombing, and gives it even a little bit of thought, should realize that doing so is almost certainly far beyond Israel's capabilities and likely beyond US capabilities with anything short of all-out air war which means all-out war. It is highly unlikely that Iran will simply accept a weeks or months-long bombing campaign without escalation. Thus, the choice is not between nuclear Iran and bombing Iran. It is amongst nuclear Iran, war with Iran and an ultimately nuclear Iran anyway, or something else. The something else is sanctions on oil and finances. Together they can, if we are willing to endure the pain of the impact on oil prices, bring Iran to its knees without any bloodshed other than the possibility of violent Iranian response. As far as Israel's depth and Iran's depth and so on and so forth, Israel has thermonuclear weapons mounted on missile submarines obtained from Germany. Israel is quite capable of utterly destroying Iran, pretty much to the last human being, and no doubt would if Iran ever used nuclear arms against it. The argument that Iran seeks to destroy itself is unconvincing to say the least.

- roidubouloi

February 23, 2012 at 2:58pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

If Roid is correct that Iran has normal survival instincts, then that would suggest that Iran will not pursue a long determined war to defend its nukes or the regime.

- amidut

February 23, 2012 at 3:15pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Israel's ability to destroy Iran is pretty meaningless to Israel if the Israeli homeland is destroyed and irradiated.

- amidut

February 23, 2012 at 3:18pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Al Arabiya was established by the Saudis to confront Al Jazeera owned by Qatar, to confront """radical ideas """, mainly criticizing the Saudi royal family. Obama gave that interview in Al Arabiya, sometime ago. I don't recall if it was before or after BHO visit to Saudi Arabia, where BHO bent to the Saudi prince, caught criticism. The Saudis will be mightily pleased if the USA or Israel take out the nuclear reactors of Iran. At any rate the Saudis removed their ambassador from Syria. It is most inconvenient. The Saudis and other royal oil gulf country heads, had built luxury villas in the north of Syria for vacationing. I guess here Saudi Arabia and Qatar get along just fine. Our petrodollars are put to some use. Saudis are ready to replace the USA on the 2.7 billion annual aid to Egypt, in case of need. The religious leader of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood lived in exile in one of these gulf Arab countries. He recently returned to Egypt, made a sermon or speech, in which he assured Jerusalem will be liberated from the Jewish infidels. The guy is in his eighties, no senility here. Egypt also removed it's ambassador from Syria. Otherwise they have their own problems. How distant is that era when Syria and Egypt made their alliance when Gamal Abdel Nasser was Egypt's leader. BTW Nasser was enormously popular with his people, he started with great hopes, then he became militaristic to the extreme, terrorized Israel, from all places Gaza. His military adventures were one failure after another. The Russians were his patron always receiving military equipment used during WWII. Dies of a heart attack, Sadat replaced him, then Mubarak and you know the rest. We are waiting for the future. But we see Iran not learning from the past.

- JAIMECHUCH

February 23, 2012 at 3:20pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

BTW it was Egypt/Nasser that created the PLO and the demon Arafat.

- JAIMECHUCH

February 23, 2012 at 3:23pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The Shia religion, and Iran , is a suicidal religion. Martyrdom is all over the place, read Vali Nasr books, specially the best seller The Shia Revival. I will remind you of the 1980's war between Iran/Ayatollah Khomeini and Iraq/Sadam Hussein, After eight years and a million dead, nobody won nobody was defeated, a truly Mexican stand off. The Iranian theocratic dictatorship wouldn't care less if they were evaporated. You are dealing with zealots. Besides if you starve them to dead leads you nowhere. Look at North Korea, people starve but they have nuclear technology. These Iranian guys have put 50,000 missiles in Hizbollah/Lebanon and 10,000 missiles in Hamas/Gaza , and heavens knows how many in Syria. You are dealing with non rational fanatics. Suicidal fanatics. Threatening destruction of whatever, whenever and wherever. Jimmy Carter and Zigbie should have never helped the Ayatollah Khoumeini come to power. But there they are. Anyhow China, Japan, India get their oil from Iran. They don't seem to be worried about Iran belligerence and their possible nukes. And together with Russia they are friends with shorty Ahmadenijad. BTW Chavez/Venezuela and Bolivia and Castro/Cuba are solemnly irrelevant. Next.

- JAIMECHUCH

February 23, 2012 at 3:48pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You people have never seen a Middle Eastern war you didn't want to jump right into the middle of.

- ATLeft

February 23, 2012 at 3:55pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Al-Qaeda has already publically aided and fought for the Free Syrian Army. Unless we do the same we risk handing al-Qaeda a world wide propaganda victory. Al-Qaeda and the USA fought on the same side in Bosnia in the 90s, though both sides don't like it we can do that again in Syria.

- invegat

February 23, 2012 at 3:58pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Did you know that Chavez/Venezuela is running for re-election? The candidate running against good old Hugo, is part Jewish. So you know what, there have been several anti-Semitic incidents going on in Venezuela. Chavez survived his cancer or so he says, but early this week went to Cuba(they are good for medical treatment), to get operated about his cancer, maybe chemotherapy, who knows. The good Cuban medical treatments have kept Fidel Castro in good shape from his almost fatal illness. BTW Fidel Castro, or Che Guevara, were medical doctors. May be they should try to increase the height of shorty Ahmadenijad. BTW Castro told Ahmadenijad to stop denying the Holocaust. Shorty did not listen. He is still vociferous together with Ayatollah Khameini. Looking forward to Friday services in Teheran , tomorrow. In Syria there will be more killings.

- JAIMECHUCH

February 23, 2012 at 4:06pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

We don't need any more wars in the Middle East. Unless.....

- JAIMECHUCH

February 23, 2012 at 4:12pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

BTW Erdogan/Turkey has also been recovering from cancer. Some irrational voices have been blaming the Mossad. And I kid you not. Is cancer caused by virus? Can you help here ironyroad. Thanks

- JAIMECHUCH

February 23, 2012 at 4:20pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Amidut, a few points in response: "Wildboy outlines the possible consequences of an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities. But he fails to outline likely consequences of not attacking Iran." Absolutely correct. But you were asking why Obama wasn't prepared to attack Iran in the immediate future, and I told you why. We can obviously disagree with his assessment, but it's not coming out of the blue. "As for differences of opinion among the Israelis, Israel, unlike Iran, is a truly democratic country. Remember, the stakes are high for Israel and they are desperate to get this situation right." True enough, but a non-sequitur nonetheless. If all of Israel's military and intelligence chiefs were in full agreement with Netenyahu, then I would guess the US administration would be pushing back less on Israel's desire to attack Iran ASAP. The fact that they are not gives the US some push-back. Public opinion in a democracy isn't the only thing that counts for whether an American government agrees with another democracy or not -- after all, public opposition to the Iraq War in Britain, France and Germany didn't dissuade the US from pursuing the war. "A likely prescription for increased nuclear brinksmanship and miscalculation. Iran's growing power, and the perceived weakness of Obama, will have self-fulfilling consequences as regional players decide to ride the seemingly stronger horse. What good is the hardware of American power if Obama is afraid to use it directly or as political leverage?" Again, true enough -- but the Americans don't see the current situation as a choice between bombing Iran now to prevent it from obtaining nuclear weapons in the foreseeable future and allowing the nightmare scenario to play out. For starters, they don't think that they or the Israelis are capable of delivering on the first promise, because the bombing will likely not fully destroy Iran's nuclear facilities (they are better guarded and harder to hit than Iraq's or Syria's) or that a successful strike will by itself cause the Iranians to give up the program. Instead, the assessment is that the Iranians will put their program back together within 5 years and probably weaponize it immediately at that time, after which the US and Israel will have to deal with a much more difficult and dangerous scenario of having to attack an Iran that may already have nuclear weapons. They are also concerned that a less-than-thorough destruction of Iran's facilities will rally Iranians around their government and their nuclear program and cause the Iranians to lash out in a low-grade war against US and Israeli interests around the world. But the alternative, in the minds of the Americans, is not to sit on their hands and wait for the whole Middle East to go nuclear or for a new nightmare scenario of nuclear-fueled Iranian brinksmanship. One alternative is a negotiated settlement with Iran whereby it places its nuclear program squarely under international supervision and foregoes the right to enrich uranium for military purposes in exchange for some sort of security understanding and lifting of sanctions. The other alternative -- assuming that the Iranians won't agree to the settlement -- is to give Israel assurances that the US won't allow the Iranians to weaponize their enriched uranium and will destroy any Iranian nuclear facilities. In the meantime, the US and Israel will work to keep Iran off balance, continue to undermine its foreign policy and nuclear program and prepare the groundwork for a future assault on Iranian weapons facilities and to stabilize international financial markets against the likely effects of such an assault. "With nukes and missiles, Iran will be able to threaten Europe." They can credibly only threaten European nations that are not in NATO -- the biggest of which (Russia) is on Iran's side and the rest of which are keeping out of this debate altogether. If Iran threatens a NATO member, that will be a threat against the whole alliance, the US included. And if Iran is so foolish as to launch a missile against a NATO member country, they should expect NATO missiles to fly right back at them with the same kind of payloads they used against the NATO member. The Iranians may want to martyr themselves to get the satisfaction of destroying the Jews, but I don't think they are interested in martyrdom for the satisfaction of destroying the Romanians. "Iran has military installations in Venezuela and the active cooperation of Hugo Chavez and, by extension, Cuba. They are an increasing threat to the US homeland. Shouldn't we pre-empt that threat? No doubt lots of Iranian, Hezbollah, and Hamas agents, who don't speak Spanish very well, have already infiltrated US territory." Forgive me for calling these arguments the barnyard epithets they are. I know why the Israeli press is full of these kinds of stories -- they are attempts to pressure the US into allowing Israel to preemptively attack Iran, because Iran is shown as posing the same sort of risk to the US as it does to Israel via Hezbollah, Hamas and Syria. That doesn't make these stories credible or true. If there is one place where the US has better intelligence assets than the Israelis, it is in Latin America and the assessment from the US intelligence community is that the risks posed by Iran, Hezbollah or Hamas in Latin America are miniscule and generally targeted at Israeli interests than American ones. To press this kind of overhyped pseudo-intelligence on Americans is both silly and unnecessary -- it's not like the American military and the CIA will suddenly decide to OK Israeli airstrikes against Iran because A'jad visited Hugo Chavez and sold him some oil derricks or because an Iranian-American used car salesman got himself involved in a cockamamie plot to kill the Saudi ambassador to Washington. The American military and the CIA will agree to Israeli airstrikes against Iran because they have decided that those airstrikes are necessary to protect American strategic interests in the Middle East and elsewhere, not because of some ginned-up controversies over a handful of Iranians in Latin America. It's not the Cold War anymore and Iran is not the Soviet Union circa 1960.

- wildboy

February 23, 2012 at 4:57pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I love it. The U.S. is infested with Iranian agents, working in concert with Cuba and Venezuela. Fantastic. It's like a 21st century version of "Invasion USA," the, uh, classic Chuck Norris action flick. The Iranians have replaced the Soviets, but basically it's the same thing. And it's all true. Every word of it. Anyone who says otherwise is objectively pro-Holocaust 2.0. Therefore, the United States must attack Iran immediately or sooner, if possible. Anyone who says otherwise is the moral equivalent of a prison guard at Bergen Belsen.

- DC Spence

February 23, 2012 at 5:18pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I read the Israeli press daily. YNet, Haaretz, Jerusalem Post. There has been no mention about Iranian Hezbollah operatives in Venezuela or else in Latin America, other than the Iranian terrorist attacks in Argentinian Jewish institutions a few years ago, and the failure of Argentinian authorities to capture the criminals. Otherwise this is a bad dream of whoever.

- JAIMECHUCH

February 23, 2012 at 6:04pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

DC Spence "I love it. The U.S. is infested with Iranian agents, working in concert with Cuba and Venezuela. Fantastic. It's like a 21st century version of "Invasion USA," the, uh, classic Chuck Norris action flick. The Iranians have replaced the Soviets, but basically it's the same thing." Spence in DC would love it better if the Iranian actually nuked Israel. Don't be shy, Spence, tell the truth. This is the outcome you are hoping for, right? btw: The Soviet Union did have agents here, lots of them. But never mind, to Spence it's all a Jewish plot.

- arnon

February 23, 2012 at 6:07pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

There are cases like the illegal Moroccan captured recently was going to use a vest to blow up himself in the Capitol.

- JAIMECHUCH

February 23, 2012 at 6:15pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It would be worth reading Marc Lynch's report at CNAS offering a plan to use diplomacy to bring Syrian opposition factions into greater agreement with each other and convince more of the actors that secure Assad's coalition that their options are better with Assad gone. Whether or not doing what Lynch suggests would be adequate, it would be critical to any Phase IV if more overt intervention is taken.

- sighthnd

February 23, 2012 at 6:25pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

When did Israel become a U.S. state? Did I miss that?

- ATLeft

February 23, 2012 at 6:48pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

02/23/2012 - 3:15pm EDT | amidut If Roid is correct that Iran has normal survival instincts, then that would suggest that Iran will not pursue a long determined war to defend its nukes or the regime. 02/23/2012 - 3:18pm EDT | amidut Israel's ability to destroy Iran is pretty meaningless to Israel if the Israeli homeland is destroyed and irradiated. _____________________ None of this makes sense. Iran fought a long and bloody war with Iraq. Over what exactly other than its refusal to be bullied by Iraq? No reason to think it would not fight a long war with the US within its means. Iraq should have taught us that, unless we are willing to unleash total war, we don't necessarily have the power to bend distant nations to our will. There is constant confusion in all of these discussions between the power of the United States if fully deployed against a threat to our own existence and the power we can deploy in other circumstances when there are domestic political and foreign diplomatic constraints. If we are willing to go to war with Iran to stop its nuclear program, we should just blockade the Persian Gulf, because that will be the result anyway. As for the second comment, MAD doesn't make sense in a normal way and didn't during the Cold War either. The fact is that Israel has the capacity to destroy everything in Iran.

- roidubouloi

February 23, 2012 at 6:51pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This could be the spark we have somehow avoided so far. Russia and China are clearly taking a stand. They decided to stay on the sidelines. We were fortunate. But with America leading a coalition there might be a larger proxy war. America had one big proxy war with China and Russia. Vietnam. I admire Sen. McCain and I am a fellow Vietnam vet. But even Turkey is on the sidelines, and this war is in its backyard. We made our choices after the 9/11 attacks. Americans are politically fatigued after two seemingly endless and inconclusive wars Our volunteer armed forces has expended far too much blood and treasure with multiple deployments. Many thousands have been killed in Syria. It is a tragedy. But how many Iragi civilians have been slaughtered during our invasion and occupation? Most estimates are at least around a 100,000. Did TNR editorially support that war? We had three big wars: Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq. What do we have to show for these wars? The only thing I learned in Vietnam is hell is paved with good intentions.

- rewiredhogdog

February 23, 2012 at 7:07pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This could be the spark we have somehow avoided so far. Russia and China are clearly taking a stand. They decided to stay on the sidelines. We were fortunate. But with America leading a coalition there might be a larger proxy war. America had one big proxy war with China and Russia. Vietnam. I admire Sen. McCain and I am a fellow Vietnam vet. But even Turkey is on the sidelines, and this war is in its backyard. We made our choices after the 9/11 attacks. Americans are politically fatigued after two seemingly endless and inconclusive wars Our volunteer armed forces has expended far too much blood and treasure with multiple deployments. Many thousands have been killed in Syria. It is a tragedy. But how many Iragi civilians have been slaughtered during our invasion and occupation? Most estimates are at least around a 100,000. Did TNR editorially support that war? We had three big wars: Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq. What do we have to show for these wars? The only thing I learned in Vietnam is hell is paved with good intentions.

- rewiredhogdog

February 23, 2012 at 7:07pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"China and Russia." You write as if these two countries were one. They are not and don't even have the same interests. They did oppose the imposition of sanctions at the UN but that didn't cost them anything. I doubt they will fight a war to defend Iran. Iran is as much a threat to Russia as it is to the West,

- arnon

February 23, 2012 at 7:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It is funny . I read the Israeli newspapers and comments. The news about the massacre in Syria is posted and the comments are innocuous . The news about possible Israel attacking Iran is not prime from the Israeli comments. And the latest was that Barak , the defense minister, was adamant about attacking Iran, his fellow ministers told him to shut up. Now, Netanyauh is coming next week to meet BHO. There are constant headlines of USA officers telling Bibi to wait and see that the sanctions against Iran are working . But for this meeting Israel announced 600 new apartments in the liberated territories. The state dept. condemned such move. And now BHO and Bibi will have their tet a tet. meeting. In the meantime Abbas/Fatah and Hamas announced suspension of their up tenth new agreement, Iran is against it. And any client of Iran Either obeys or will not get their petro euros, petro rice from India, petro yens , nor petro huans.

- JAIMECHUCH

February 23, 2012 at 8:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Wildboy conflates the Obama administration and Americans in general. Americans in general are more enthusiastic supporters of Israel. Obama's efforts to tie up Israel, when they become known, will not be popular with the American public. This may give the Republicans a break this year, despite their sad lineup of prospective candidates. I reiterate my point, lost in all the to and fro here, that supporting an Israeli attack on the Iranian nukes could well topple the Islamic Republic and take Iran out of action in Syria. The Ajad Khamenei regime is fragile.

- amidut

February 23, 2012 at 8:53pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

U.S. never acknowledges it's own Reign of Terror, avec Israel, against Palestinians.... We flaunt a morally weak position which many in the Mid-east and elsewhere see as blatent hypocrisy. Pograms and Crusades are both historical embarrassments which all who claim to be rational must abhor. We close our eyes to all that suffering and focus only on the evils of Assad. People of the world aren't stupid--it's a way of wasting the good will we so often deserve....

- JohnC

February 23, 2012 at 9:04pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I cannot imagine why anyone should imagine that an attack on Iran would do other than strengthen the regime. What historical evidence is there for the notion that an external attack makes a government more vulnerable politically? The evidence in general is to the contrary, and there is no reason to think Iran is an exception. Moreover, there is zero reason to think that if the regime were toppled it would be replaced by one less hostile to our interests or to Israel. Under those circumstances, it could easily be replaced by one even more hostile. Our great project in remaking the government of Iraq by force of arms is highly unlikely in the end to gain us an ally. Saddam Hussein in the 80s will prove to have been a better ally of the US than Iraq 10 years from now. These notions or regime change in our own interest are sheer folly. The purpose of our military power is to defend us, not to remake the world in our own image, a futile task and one that, if consistently undertaken, will wreck far more than it builds. _____________________ I would have to disagree about the Crusades. In that era, conquering other nations when possible is what pretty much all states did, including Moslem states. If the Crusades are an embarrassment, then the conquest of Christian Palestine by Moslems from the Arabian Peninsula, and the even later conquest of Byzantine Asia Minor by Moslem Turks, would have to be accounted as greater embarrassments. Any such characterization of any of these events is anachronistic. Moreover, the public and international morality that came to see such behavior as unacceptable evolved in the west, not in the Moslem world or indeed anywhere else in the world. It is not at all clear that these western mores are even yet accepted in the Moslem world. That is an embarrassment. I strongly disapprove of Israeli colonization of the Palestinian Arabs and of US support for it. But that is only because I expect the US and Israel to live up to the moral standards of the western community of which the US is and Israel claims to be a part. If Israel were free to conduct itself in the manner of the Moslem world, there could hardly be any objection.

- roidubouloi

February 23, 2012 at 9:45pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

JohnC "U.S. never acknowledges it's own Reign of Terror, avec Israel, against Palestinians.." What "reign of terror is that," JohnC? The US didn't start supporting Israel in a big way till after 1967. Otoh, Israel accepted the UN partition plan which was rejected by your Arab friends who reacted by launching deadly attack on Jewish areas and then launched a full scale invasion in 1948. You have got it backwards it was the Arabs and later the Palestinians who launched a reign of terror. Of course you would have been happier had the Arabs driven the Jews out and set up another Muslim Arab country.

- arnon

February 23, 2012 at 10:00pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Arnon, of course the Soviets had lots of agents here. [I even knew one of them.] That's the point. The attempt by extremist whackjobs such as yourself to build Iran up into a superpower threat like the USSR, is preposterous. I suspect your brain is fried from all the time you spend masturbating to photographs of dead Arab children.

- DC Spence

February 23, 2012 at 10:37pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

When I read the article this morning, I was scared. When I came home tonight and saw 50 comments waiting, I was terrified.

- skahn

February 23, 2012 at 11:55pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

We have started withe insults of the mediocre losers like DC Spence and roidubouloi. Dc defending Iran as not too dangerous. roidubloi the king du stinky baloney demonizing Israel demonizing the Jews calling them by their code name of neo cons. Roi is a Galicianer, known for being always dishonest. He ads to the mix complete ignorance blabbering international non-existent agreements. He is a self hatred Jew, lonely and completely ignored. He has been obsessed with proclaiming illegality of the liberated territories. And in his early post proclaimed that Assad was not doing crimes against humanity, until he read the new York times article reporting the UN report. I feel sorry for roi because he is mentally handicapped. He will answer my post with his usual Turret syndrome of obscenities. But somebody has to take care of this feeble minded individual.

- JAIMECHUCH

February 24, 2012 at 1:12am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

We have the vermins anti Israel ATLeft and JohnC. The Muslims, Arabs, Iran are the good kidos in the neighborhood, Israel is mean. The Palestinians are the construction workers that Israel has paid over a billion dollars wages over the last year, collecting 100 million in taxes for the Palestinian Authority to be able to function. Reign of terror, my foot. Colonization, my other foot. 20% of Israel population are Arabs, mainly Muslim, full free citizens with equal rights. The Arab spring never mentioned Israel, the massacres in Syria never mentioned Israel. It is only these Jew haters and self hatred Jews, that come to spill their vile, that can not stand an Israel that has progressed in the middle of Muslim decadence. So the vermins come to roost ? roidubouloi ,self hatred Jew, has joined you with his dementia , please treat him with compassion because he does not know what he is saying. Well the anti Israel crowd has infested this site, we need to resurrect DDT and provide the necessary hygiene .

- JAIMECHUCH

February 24, 2012 at 1:34am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The Druze population in the Golan Heights are quite relived that They are under Israeli governance. At one time they were going to be under Syrian control if and when a peace agreement dad been reached between Israel an Syria. Obama and Netanyahu are to meet next week for briefing about status of Iranian sanctions. The USA Israel alliance is stronger than ever.

- JAIMECHUCH

February 24, 2012 at 1:56am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

And now quack to business from Muslim sources Bumps on the Egyptian Arab Spring . Islamist presidential candidate assaulted. http://english.alarabiya.net/articles/2012/02/24/196648.html Anan named UN envoy to Syria  http://www.aljazeera.com/

- JAIMECHUCH

February 24, 2012 at 2:08am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The anti Israel gangs will always hide the following. After seven years finally the UN condemns terror attacks against Israelis http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4194247,00.html Hamas/Gaza continuous attacks against Israeli civilians http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4194275,00.html The anti Israel gangs would never talk about Muslim terrorists attacking Israel.  

- JAIMECHUCH

February 24, 2012 at 2:20am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

JAIMECHUCH, point to a single instance of me "defending Iran." You can't because we both know it has never happened. Unless, of course, you define "defending Iran" as opposing a U.S. attack on Iran. Naturally, that's precisely how lunatics like you and Arnon do define "defending Iran." By the standards of cretins like you and Arnon, the majority of the U.S. population is defending Iran and hoping for a nuclear attack that destroys Israel. You and Arnon are a witches brew of stupidity, bigotry and insanity. Thank goodness people like you are not entrusted with real power and instead must settle for seeking the Republican nomination for president.

- DC Spence

February 24, 2012 at 7:12am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

DCSpence. Who fried his brains masturbating while minimizing Iran aggressiveness and super buildup militarily, and max terrorism around the world? You should-have washed your hand before posting idiotic comments. You did.Re Read your damn comment again 2/23. 10.37 pm. Yes Iran is a superpower of terror.

- JAIMECHUCH

February 24, 2012 at 7:56am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

DCSpence Your comment 5/23. 5:18 pm. You are defending Iran, minimizing their terrorist powerful aggressiveness. You could be naive, but you are stupid , a friend of Iran is an enemy of USA, an enemy of Israel. Next, you hateful dumb dumb.

- JAIMECHUCH

February 24, 2012 at 8:07am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

DCSpence. Weakness of Iran. Iranians plant 50,000 missiles in Hizbullah/Lebanon, 10,000 missiles in Hamas/Gaza, who knows how many in Syria. Iranian agents bomb Jewish centers in Buenos Aires Argentina . In Lebanon , Reagan's presidency, Hizbullah kills over 200 American marines. Constantly the Iranian dictators state they are going to destroy Israel and kill Americans. Ahmadenijad visits frequently USA enemies in Latinamerica, Chavez/Venezuela, Bolivia, Castro/Cuba. Do you think they get together to play canasta? Or to plot against the USA. Really DCSpence, again are you naive, dumb of just anti-Israel. BTW, why did you call me a bigot? Me being anti-Iran makes me a bigot, facing a mortal enemy of the USA, mortal enemy of Israel, makes me a bigot? You have your terms confused. Dumb dumb. So DCSpence

- JAIMECHUCH

February 24, 2012 at 8:31am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The majority of Americans are pro Israel, and want Iran stopped from acquiring nuclear weapons. Want Iran stopped from their terroristic aggressiveness. Whatever it takes. You are a minority of minorities, pro Iran and anti USA Israel coalition. DCSpence soooooooo ....dumb. Ostriches hide their head in the sand, you hide your head in your ass.

- JAIMECHUCH

February 24, 2012 at 8:40am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

He calls you a bigot, because you are a bigot. Or simply unhinged. Or more likely both. Currently the single nuttiest poster here.

- roidubouloi

February 24, 2012 at 8:44am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

skahn, don't be scared. Once you ignore the Chooch's comments there are only 30 comments or so on this thread! And roid and others bring some nice light to the heat generated by the editorial.

- wildboy

February 24, 2012 at 9:28am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

roidubloi We know you are a Galiciener always dishonest self hatred Jew. You are the king du rotten baloney. You spend your time demonizing Israel, demonizing netanyaugh, demonizing Jews by using the code name neo cons. Constantly using the canard of illegitimate liberated territories. You are so mediocre that initially under your first comment here, you were defending Bassar al Assad massacres denying it was crimes against humanity. Until like a licking dog, my apologies to the dog, you red the UN report in the new York times, the anti Israel newspaper par excellence. Then going back to the NYT you read another article by an ex administration individual proposing Turkish troops enter Syria to help victims of the massacre. You objected, and had no proposal whatsoever. It is true what DCSpence says, you are idiotized by maximum masturbation with your obsession of illegal liberated territories and demonization against your fellow Jews you hate so dearly. Galicieners are above all dishonest and double crossers. Well roidubouloi you certainly are the king du stinky baloney. Weird this Jew is a bigot against his own Jews. He gets a pass because this old failed person is demented. His illness is emphaty deficiency syndrome. Only that he is dangerous . Since you are a danger to others and to yourself, you should be locked up.

- JAIMECHUCH

February 24, 2012 at 10:52am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

DC Spence: “The attempt by extremist whackjobs such as yourself to build Iran up into a superpower threat like the USSR, is preposterous.” I never said Iran is a superpower. You don’t have to be a superpower in order to have and deploy nuclear weapons. Pakistan is not a superpower but it has a nuclear arsenal with which it can threaten India. Like most crazy anti-Israel posters you make up your own facts and talk yourself into believing them. You are a sorry ass bigot who keeps posting the same rubbish in thread after thread.

- arnon1

February 24, 2012 at 10:53am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

wildboy. Soon to be domesticated. Wou these defenders of terrorist Iran and deep anti-Israel anti USA Israel coalition are like cockroaches. They hide in dark corners, and run wildly with fear. Definitely revival of DDT is in order. I almost made a mistake and called him wild dog, but that would be an insult to dogs.

- JAIMECHUCH

February 24, 2012 at 11:01am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

JAIMECHUCH: That's awfully shrill of you, considering what I said. I'm not anti-Israel (nor am I a vermin). I'm just not not particularly pro-Israel. Why do I pay taxes to keep Israel armed to the teeth? I don't pay to do that for most other countries (if I do, I don't want to). Do I get a return on that investment? It sure doesn't seem that way to me.

- ATLeft

February 24, 2012 at 11:04am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

ATLeft, you have a right to your opinion, but you are wrong about your taxes "arming Israel to the teeth." You should do some research on the issue before you offer an opinion.

- arnon1

February 24, 2012 at 11:09am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Arnon1: I am correct. You are wrong. You should do some research on the issue before you offer an opinion.

- ATLeft

February 24, 2012 at 11:19am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The nuts have certainly taken over this asylum, most notably Jaime, the Jew-hater. Or maybe he only hates Jews from Galicia. Who can really say when dealing with such fruitcake? _____________________ Regardless of whether one agrees or disagrees with ATLeft's opinion on the matter, he is quite right about his facts: "Despite its relatively small size, Israel is the largest recipient of U.S. foreign military assistance. It received a total of $53.6 billion in U.S. military grants between 1949 and 2007. Over the past decade, the U.S. has transferred more than $17 billion in military aid to this country of 7,746,000 people." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_aid#Notable_foreign_military_Aid So, maybe those who suggest doing research should do some research before they suggest anyone else should do some research. As a general matter, if one wants to take issue with another's factual claims, it is a good idea to have some. Merely suggesting that someone else has not done their homework doesn't cut it and often leads to embarrassing error.

- roidubouloi

February 24, 2012 at 11:25am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

When taking issue with someone else's factual claims, it is a good idea to have some of one's own at hand. This who want to claim to know more had better know more in fact or they look very foolish.

- roidubouloi

February 24, 2012 at 11:27am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

ATLeft. You can check this yourself :Wikipedia, CIA gov facts Israel GDP 240 billion dollars, military expenditures 17 billion. All military expenditures are with USA companies. Check also the Bloomberg site. A report before yesterday indicated that for the last ten years, the best return on your investment has been Israel. Also get yourself the book Start Up Nation. The country that has the most start-ups per capita is Israel. And see how satisfying it is for Intel, Microsoft, and more. The software technology for smart phones, and development of drones technology, to cite a few examples comes from Israel. The USA Israel alliance is strong. Thus ATLeft I hope you have learned the lesson of today. Return of investment USA in Israel is quite high. With the enormous recent gas discoveries off the shores of Haifa, the return will be higher. And remember the Israeli contributions to science and medical research. Israel has one of the largest generic medicine companies in the world Teva.

- JAIMECHUCH

February 24, 2012 at 11:33am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

ATLeft. You can check this yourself :Wikipedia, CIA gov facts Israel GDP 240 billion dollars, military expenditures 17 billion. All military expenditures are with USA companies. Check also the Bloomberg site. A report before yesterday indicated that for the last ten years, the best return on your investment has been Israel. Also get yourself the book Start Up Nation. The country that has the most start-ups per capita is Israel. And see how satisfying it is for Intel, Microsoft, and more. The software technology for smart phones, and development of drones technology, to cite a few examples comes from Israel. The USA Israel alliance is strong. Thus ATLeft I hope you have learned the lesson of today. Return of investment USA in Israel is quite high. With the enormous recent gas discoveries off the shores of Haifa, the return will be higher. And remember the Israeli contributions to science and medical research. Israel has one of the largest generic medicine companies in the world Teva.

- JAIMECHUCH

February 24, 2012 at 11:33am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You know, Jaime. Some of my best friends are Jewish. Come to think of it, almost all of my best friends are Jewish. My first girlfriend, my oldest and dearest best friend, is Jewish. We all met at Jewish summer camp when we were teenagers. A bunch of them are now rabbis, some quite prominent. Another is a top fundraiser for the UJA. Another is a top fundraiser for the National Holocaust Museum. Another is a leader of the Religious Action Center. Now that I am on the subject, my parents were Jewish, and even my children are Jewish. My sister, who made aliyah with her husband 33 years ago and helped to found a kibbutz in the desert, is Jewish too. So is my brother-in-law, a trustee of the JNF. So too are their children, my niece and nephews who all served as officers in the IDF. Which reminds me that my niece was decorated for her service by the president of Israel (but we don't know why and she can't tell us). And you know what, Jaime? Almost every single one of them, including the members of my Israeli family, are appalled by the Israeli colonization of the Palestinians. That includes my nephews who spent part of their army service in the West Bank. My sister, who poured her life into that desert, said to me recently, "This country is fucked." And she didn't mean by the Arabs. She meant by sick bastards like you. This is why you are a bigot and a Jew-hater, Jaime. Because you accuse of anti-Semitism anyone, Jewish or not, who does not share your extremist opinions. I hereby excommunicate you, and I baptize you a Mormon.

- roidubouloi

February 24, 2012 at 11:45am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

“Despite its relatively small size, Israel is the largest recipient of U.S. foreign military assistance. It received a total of $53.6 billion in U.S. military grants between 1949 and 2007.” First, the military aid given to Israel started after 1967. Before that the amount of aid was miniscule. Second, during the cold war Israel played an important as an ally against the Soviet Union. Thirds, the US also provided massive amount of aid during that period to other countries in the region, Turkey and Saudi Arabia for example. Fourth, the websites given as evidence has an anti-Israel agenda: they would like to see the US cut off military aid and spend the money in this country—they are entitled to their opinion but I doubt that if aid were cut off it would: “If military aid were cut off to Israel, the tax money could be spent in the United States to provide 364,000 low-income households with affordable housing vouchers, or to retrain 498,000 workers for green jobs, or to provide access to primary health care services for 24 million uninsured Americans.[8]” This is why the website concentrates so heavily on Israel. Fifth: The US does benefit from a military partnership with Israel. There are many R&D projects which have contributed to the development of weapons system used by both countries.

- arnon1

February 24, 2012 at 11:49am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"When taking issue with someone else's factual claims, it is a good idea to have some of one's own at hand." Not necessarily. All one has to do is to show that someone's claims are exaggerations or outright lies. Since the data is out there people who are interested can go check them for themselves. The issue isn't only numbers it's the way one interprets the numbers.

- arnon1

February 24, 2012 at 11:53am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Facts are facts, arnon. You questioned ATLeft's factual claim. He was correct, you were not. Whether one thinks that we receive a return on our gifts to Israel is largely a matter of opinion. I personally think the notion of Israel as our ally is ludicrous. It is our client, not our ally. It surely made no contribution to our stand-off with the Soviet Union, except a negative one by giving the Soviet Union an avenue to cultivate its own allies in the Middle East. We don't seem to be short of the ability to develop high-tech weapons systems. The economic benefits of any joint development are surely of vastly more importance to Israel than to us.

- roidubouloi

February 24, 2012 at 11:56am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Here is a rebuttal written by a US Congressman: "Benefits of US aid to Israel exceed cost" By STEVE ROTHMAN "There is no economic aid to Israel, other than loan guarantees. The argument that American military aid to Israel is damaging to the United States is not only erroneous, it hurts the national security interests of this country and threatens the survival of Israel. US support for Israel is essential, not only for Israel’s national security, but for America’s. Every bit of that support – and more – withstands all reasonable scrutiny. Under the 2010 US budget, about $75 billion, $65 billion and $3.25 billion will be spent on military operations and aid in Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan during this fiscal year, respectively. Israel will receive $3 billion, in military aid only. There is no economic aid to Israel, other than loan guarantees that continue to be repaid in full and on time. There isn’t enough space here to discuss the relative merits of the expenditures in these other countries, but we already know the critically important return the US gets for helping its oldest, most trusted ally in the strategically important Middle East – the most powerful military force in that region, the pro-US, pro-West and democratic Jewish state of Israel. Here’s how. FIRST, IT’S important to remember that about 70 percent of the $3 billion aid must be used by Israel to purchase American military equipment. This provides real support for US high- tech defense jobs and contributes to maintaining our industrial base. This helps the US stay at the very top in the manufacturing of our own cutting-edge military munitions, aircraft, vehicles, missiles and virtually every defensive and offensive weapon in the US arsenal – with the added contribution of Israel’s renowned technical know-how. Second, the US and Israel are jointly developing state- of-the-art missile defense capabilities in the David’s Sling and Arrow 3 systems. These two technologies build on the already successful Arrow 2, jointly developed by our two countries, which is already providing missile defense security to Israel and US civilians and ground troops throughout the region. The knowledge the US gains from these efforts also has a positive multiplier effect on applications to other US military and non-military uses and US jobs. Third, given Israel’s strategic location on the Mediterranean, with access to the Red Sea and other vital international shipping and military lanes of commerce and traffic, it is critically important to the US that Israel continues to serve as a port of call for our troops, ships, aircraft and intelligence operations. Israel also has permitted the US to stockpile arms, fuel, munitions and other supplies on its soil to be accessed whenever America needs them in the region. Fourth, America’s special relationship with Israel provides the US with real-time, minute-to-minute access to one of the best intelligence services in the world: Israel’s. With Israeli agents gathering intelligence and taking action throughout the Middle East and, literally, around the world, regarding al- Qaida, Hizbullah, Iran and Hamas, among others, the US receives invaluable information about anti-US and terrorist organizations and regimes. Fifth, imagine the additional terrible cost in US blood, and the hundreds of billions more of American taxpayer dollars, if Saddam Hussein had developed nuclear weapons, or if Syria possessed them. Then remember that it was Israel that destroyed the almost-completed nuclear reactor at Osirak, Iraq, in 1981 and Syria’s nuclear facility under construction at Deir-ez-Zor in 2007. And think about the many operations that Israel’s Defense Forces and intelligence agents have undertaken to foil, slow and disrupt Iran’s efforts to develop a nuclear weapons capability. A nuclear-armed Iran would threaten the lives of hundreds of thousands of Americans in the region, all of Iran’s Arab neighbors, the world’s largest oil supplies and those who rely on that oil. It also would provide anti-US terrorists with access to the most lethal Iranian technology and probably set off a nuclear arms race in the region. FOR ABOUT two percent of what the US spends in Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan this year, Americans can take pride in the return on our investment in aid to Israel. And with Israel’s truly invaluable assistance to America’s vital national security, we can take comfort that – in actions seen in Tehran and Damascus and noticed by al-Qaida and other anti-US terrorists everywhere – the US is safer and made more secure because of the mutually dependent and beneficial relationship between the US and Israel. The writer is a Democratic congressman from New Jersey who serves on the House committees responsible for US military and foreign aid." – Bloomberg News

- arnon1

February 24, 2012 at 11:56am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

btw: No country would give massive amounts of aid unless it saw some benefit to itself.

- arnon1

February 24, 2012 at 11:57am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

One has to distinguish between facts and opinions. It is a matter of fact that the US has spent billions of taxpayer money arming Israel. Whether that is a good investment for the US is necessarily largely a matter of opinion. One can marshal facts to support such opinions, but the mere declaration that Israel is our ally hardly proves anything about whether it is worth the expense to have such an ally. We arm Saudi Arabia to assure our own access to oil. We armed Turkey because it was a member of NATO and the anchor of NATO defenses in the southeast. Our strategic self-interest in arming both countries is clear. What is our strategic interest in arming Israel? I think we have a moral interest in arming Israel, but in what conceivable manner does arming Israel contribute to the security of the US or to its prestige and power in the world?

- roidubouloi

February 24, 2012 at 12:02pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Whether one thinks that we receive a return on our gifts to Israel is largely a matter of opinion." Yes, it is. No sense in arguing about opinions, here.

- arnon1

February 24, 2012 at 12:03pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

roi du rotten baloney stop being a Galiciener dishonest and lier. Check my 11.37 am posting all these facts are true. You know it and are easy to verify through Wikipedia, CIA facts, Start up nation book, and on and on. Yes you are a self hatred Jew . You go on Galicianerker lier. As you post biased lies like your demented obsession about illegality of liberated territories. You can not get away of your hatred of Israel , there you have a typical self hatred Jew. I don't know the reason for your demonizing Israel, using all kinds of dishonesty. Somebody did something wrong to you that happened to be Israeli or Jew? Tell us the truth. I know it is not in your nature. But you a Galicianer Jew with such hatred against Israel against your own fellow Jews is more than an eye opener. It is the top of pure evil. What is wrong with you? I really would like to know. It really and honestly flabbergasts me. It is known that self hatred Jews are the worst anti Jews. And finally maybe I will understand your psyche. roidubouloi you are dangerous . No good you are posting all those hatred lies.

- JAIMECHUCH

February 24, 2012 at 12:04pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I like the part about how we support our own economy by in effect giving Israel weapons we produce. We could spend the money on our own weaponry. That would help our economy just as much. I also like the part about Israel's access to the Red Sea. One wonders first why this is important. But assuming it is important, doesn't our navy have access to the Red Sea? Oh yeah, we can sail in via the Indian Ocean, or we can use the Suez Canal. That's in Egypt. I don't quite see how we get to the Red Sea via Israel. We wasted a fortune fighting pointless wars in the Middle East? Now that's surely a point in Israel's favor. This Congressman is repeating a bunch of standard platitudes about Israel's military importance to us. It is virtually all nonsense that cannot withstand even a moment of critical thought.

- roidubouloi

February 24, 2012 at 12:10pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Jaime, you are giving Mormons a really bad name with your insanity and anti-Semitism.

- roidubouloi

February 24, 2012 at 12:13pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949. Section III : Occupied territories ARTICLE 49 . . . The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.

- roidubouloi

February 24, 2012 at 12:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"No sense in arguing about opinions, here." Plenty of reason to argue about opinions, here and everywhere. But one must keep straight the difference between factual claims and opinions, always. Factual claims need to be true. Opinions need to be argued cogently. The methodology is not the same, nor are the implications. We argue opinions based on facts. We do not argue facts based on opinions. (Well, at least we are not supposed to although there is an awful lot of that.)

- roidubouloi

February 24, 2012 at 12:19pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

In reality what drives these self hatred Jews to demonize dishonestly Israel. Thomas Friedman, Roger Cohen , the Ochs Schulberger all of anti Israel new York times, Gideon levy from Haaretz, JJ Goldberg from the Atlantic. What is the psychiatric reason. They can not stand success by the Jewish state? They are blind and condone the hatred violence murders of Muslim enemies of Israel. I guess is normal behavior of traitors in any other human groups, nations. It is ludicrous not to accept how Palestinian leaders don't want peace with Israel. Iranian leaders want to destroy Israel. I guess it fits that self hatred Jews have an alliance with the enemies of Israel, with the neo fascists out there. Israel free democratic country, progressing in science, technology, medicine, multiple Nobel laureates, multiple top universities. Is to be demonized and destroyed? I can understand the fanatic corrupt dictators of the Muslim countries, because this will be a challenge to their dictatorships. But self hatred Jews. I understand religious Jewish fanatics like natureicarters . But secular Jews? I understand neofascists. The Pat Buchanas of this world. but secular Jews?

- JAIMECHUCH

February 24, 2012 at 12:34pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Well I opened pandoras box. roidubouloi is now loose . He brings international agreements that are ignored mostly by malfeasants and Muslim dictators, Russia, China, Iran. Really the Galicianer self hatred Jew king du stinky baloney is nuts. The saying says you can not reason with a mad dog. I will leave it there. He is in bad need for attention. Somebody else should help him. He is really nuts. A poor looser.

- JAIMECHUCH

February 24, 2012 at 12:42pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

“I personally think the notion of Israel as our ally is ludicrous. It is our client, not our ally.” These are not the only possible relations between countries. Britain during WW2 and right after received massive aid from the US. It was dependent on the US yet it wasn’t a client State. There are partnerships between countries whose relationship encompass both terms: partner and client. There is something analogous in IT industries: the client-partner. That is a relationship that isn’t completely one sided. It surely made no contribution to our stand-off with the Soviet Union, except a negative one by giving the Soviet Union an avenue to cultivate its own allies in the Middle East.

- arnon1

February 24, 2012 at 1:05pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I'm still scared, now that the chicken hawks are up to almost a hundred comments. Perhaps everyone who posts a comment advocating military action in the Middle East should enlist, or be drafted.

- skahn

February 24, 2012 at 4:07pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I am a veteran, skahn. There may be others. What about you, great Kahn? I have noticed, that most of the time it's the left wingers who are against some US policy who claim to have been veterans.

- arnon1

February 24, 2012 at 5:12pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Nobody is advocating military action unilaterally. What should be recognized is that Iran is extremely militaristic, extremely terroristic. Iranian leaders blast whenever they open their mouths that they are going to destroy Israel. Deny the holocaust in bastardly insult to the Jews. Threaten killing Americans. And are in pursuit of nuclear weapons, to achieve their destruction aims. for pete's sake , they have planted missile in Hezbollah/Lebanon (50,000), in Hamas Gaza (10,000), in Syria (). They with Hizbollah operatives are assisting Assad massacre of civilians in Syria. Iran opposes Hamas/Fatah Palestinian unity negotiation that have been halted. Iran is vented in destruction and war. Ahmadenijad was recently in Latin America visiting/consulting/planning with enemies of USA: Venezuela (Hugo Chavez), Bolivia, Cuba (Castro). Iran operative tried recently to assassinate the Saudi ambassador in Washington. Moroccan Muslim terrorist tried to blow up himself in the Capitol in DC. Well skahn which is the chicken hawk you are talking about. Or don't tell me you are a blind, deaf chicken chicken, or just a scary cat. Is Iran an enemy to anything that tries to live in peace and industry? Or as they are militaristic fanatics bent into slaughtering. Wake up and reason. BTW there was a great program about Alzheimer's on the Charlie Rose program in PBS last night. You can watch in the Internet.

- JAIMECHUCH

February 24, 2012 at 7:35pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You know what. The Iranian Holocaust denial bothers me incredibly. Ditto the threats. Honestly, as I said in the other Iran thread, people should please shut up with this already. What does Iran actually want? I'm not sure that it has anything to do with Israel; meanwhile it's courting disaster and Israel would be severely harmed by attacking Iran, or if we or anybody else attacks Iran. There's no reason, no rational purpose in any of this. The only rational fact is as follows: Iran has vast oil resources and controls certain key waterways. I think they're nervous. Also, they are more poor than an oil rich state should be. North Korea just backed down in exchange for food, which doesn't really surprise me. What does Iran need, want? Israel cannot be worth their getting blown up for, mullahs or no mullahs. So, what is?

- Sophia

February 29, 2012 at 6:32pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close